Lockwood v Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust [2025] ET 2401211/2024
A non-binary individual assigned female at birth who used they/them pronouns but had no intention of transitioning to male brought claims of gender…
Authority catalogue v1.12.27 data current as of
- Citation
- ET 2401211/2024 & 2407178/2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Year
- 2025
- Status
- Persuasive
- Certainty
- Evolving
In brief
A non-binary individual assigned female at birth who used they/them pronouns but had no intention of transitioning to male brought claims of gender reassignment discrimination. The Employment Tribunal held that post-FWS, 'reassigning' under s.7 means a process with the purpose of moving from one sex to another in binary terms. A non-binary identity destination — without intention to transition to the opposite sex — does not engage s.7 protection. The claimant's claims of gender reassignment discrimination were struck out.
Key provisions
- Post-FWS, s.7 'gender reassignment' requires a process of moving from one sex to another — binary transition: Post-FWS, s.7 EA2010 "gender reassignment" requires a process of moving from one sex to another — meaning binary transition from male to female or female to male.
- holding-1 — Non-binary identity without intention to transition to the opposite sex is not protected by s.7: Post-FWS, s.7 EA2010 "gender reassignment" requires a process of moving from one sex to another — meaning binary transition from male to female or female to male.
- holding-2 — This creates a protection gap for non-binary people who do not identify with either binary sex: Non-binary identity without intention to transition to the opposite sex is not protected by s.7 EA2010, because there is no "process of reassigning sex" from one to another.
- The ruling is first-instance and not binding — may be appealed or distinguished: The ruling is a first-instance Employment Tribunal decision — not binding on other tribunals and susceptible to appeal or being distinguished on the facts.
When relevant
Any assessment involving non-binary employees, service users, or members. Affects how the toolkit frames legal protection for non-binary personas. Relevant to EqIA assessments, proportionality analysis, and governance guidance where non-binary individuals are affected by policy changes. Note: this is an ET decision (persuasive only) and the interpretation may evolve.
Take this further
Assess your organisation
See how your policies and practice measure up against this authority — and the other 121 in the catalogue — with the toolkit's free diagnostic.
Related authorities
- Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre [2023] ETS 4102236/2023
- Bailey v Linnaeus Veterinary Ltd (County Court, Case No K03CL077, 2025)
- Haynes v Thomson and Others [2025] EWCC 50
- Hutchison & Others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (Case No. 2501192/2024 & Others)
- Kelly v Leonardo UK Limited (Case No. 8001497/2024)
- Meade v Westminster City Council and Social Work England [2023] ET 2211483/2022
Browse the full authority catalogue or the toolkit's resources hub for more context.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 .